Instructional Software and Interactivity
Maggie, Satya, Debra
Introduction
Most people would agree that watching someone else play a video game is not nearly as exciting as playing it oneself. Why? The missing factor is interactivity (Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat, 1991).Although the definition of interactivity is often disputed between new media designers, artists, and users (Interactivity, n.d.), we will agree on a broad definition of interactivity applied to educational software as that being a two way flow of information between the user and the device, or the user and another person. Researchers (e.g., Bates,1990; Dwyer, Barbieri, & Doerr, 1995) agree that two types of interactivity can exist in media - isolated where activity is between materials and learner, and social where activity is between users. Isolated interaction occurs as digital interaction empowers the user to make choices and engages them to participate (Barry et al, 2017). Social interaction occurs at such times when there are options in the program to choose an opponent for a game or communicate with others.
Interactivity is an essential element in education, therefore instructional software designers and educational leaders need to understand its features and determine the best types of interactivity for their purposes. Interactivity holds the attention and engages the human mind more powerfully than any other form of expression (Crawford, 2002). Interaction is a higher order level of feedback that behaviorists and cognitivists agree are important in education, mainly because interactivity empowers and actively involves the user in the learning process (Stone, 2001). In a most recent study, Barry and Doherty (2017) report that the new public is digitally literate and demands digital interactivity, and furthermore can recognize unsuitable or lower grades of interactivity in technologies.
The review of literature on the topic of interactivity within the educational technology realm, supported three main themes. First and foremost, interactivity between peers using the software is found to be the most important type of interaction (Bates, 1990). Next, the literature suggests that purposeful interactivity within the media will yield the most optimum learning (Seal, Przasnyski, & Leon, 2010). Lastly, research reports that interactive tools promote users’ motivation and learning (Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernandez-Ortega, & Sese, 2013). These three themes will be elaborated upon within this literature review.
Interactivity Between Peers is the Most Important Type of Interaction
Not all interactivity weighs the same. Dwyer, Barbieri, and Doerr (1995) state both physical interactive resources as well as digital interactive resources are important components in educational design. Also, different types of interaction such as isolated activities, where users interact with materials and social activities, where users interact with each other regarding the materials are important to consider when designing or selecting materials (Bates, 1990). Interactivity between peers is the most essential type of interaction is one theme seen throughout the literature for several reasons.
Discussing with others is how students make sense of the information being presented to them. Dwyer et al. (1995) explains interaction with other students and staff, no matter how small, can lead to students rethinking their understanding of the material, interpretation of knowledge, and gain valuable feedback from others. Each student comes from a different background and therefore interprets information differently, perhaps from a vantage point not thought of by others. When these different perspectives are shared with others it allows students to have a deeper understanding of the information they are learning.
When designing or selecting software, an educator should be aware of the interactivity component between users. Having students interact with each other is a key way to supplement a lesson, but it should not be the sole way students digest information. Cavanaugh (1998), in regards to distance education, claims the interaction conducted online should be supplemental to the classroom. An avenue for interaction between teachers, parents, and students can be opened up using a classroom website or similar software. Chen and Chang (2007) discuss the benefits of an “e-homebook”. This is essentially a classroom discussion board where teachers can make announcements and email parents, parents can discuss class or school affairs, and students can discuss class content with their peers. This takes the interactivity outside of the classroom and has the meaningful learning and interaction continue elsewhere.
Interactivity features within software and other materials provide many benefits for both students and educators. To be sure students have the opportunity to interpret and make sense of the information being presented, educators must consider interactivity between peers when designing or electing materials so students have the chance to discuss and interpret information being presented to them.
Purposeful Interactivity Yields Optimum Learning
While it is true that interactivity between the technology and the user increases learning, an important factor that may decide optimal learning is the level of interactivity. A study conducted by Seal, Przasnyski, and Leon (2010) found that too much interactivity with the software and technology tools overwhelms the users and makes it hard “for them to consolidate concepts, integrate previous knowledge, and create meaningful mental models of the process” (p. 75). When interacting with the device, the frequency of interaction, range of interactive features, and the mode of information dispersion such as audio or visual, determine the level of interactivity (Seal et.al., 2010). Further, low interactivity consists of simple controls such as forward, backward, or repeat, which help the user to consume information at his/her own pace, while higher interactivity gives a range of choices of action and frequent back and forth of information, which lead to distractions and an increase in the cognitive load of information on the user (p. 77). In this study, the researchers found that there is a correlation with the types of cognitive load acceptance with the amount of interactivity. Overload of information and complexity of interaction create an increase in extraneous cognitive load leading to poor understanding (p. 84). Thus, the researchers concluded “low interactivity tutorials made that group view their tutorials positively in assisting them to accomplish the task at hand” (Seal et.al., 2010, p. 87).
Another aspect to be considered when incorporating interactivity is the complexity of the device to the teacher and students. This is illustrated in a research conducted by Liu and Cheng (2015) who found that when an interactive technology is newly introduced, there should be time for the teachers and students to understand and become familiar with it, before the actual results of interaction can be perceived. They also found that ceaseless interactions lead to continuous multi-tasking, information overload, and distraction from actual learning (p. 117). In a similar study by Leahy, Hanham, and Sweller (2015), the researchers found that high elements of interactivity can prove to be counterproductive to the learning process as they create a heavy memory load: “If the very narrow limits of human working memory when dealing with novel information are exceeded, the task may not be completed and learning may be limited” (Leahy, Hanham, & Sweller, 2015, p. 301).
In conclusion, low, measured, and purposeful interactivity yields optimal learning in users. Constructive, meaningful interactions between students and teacher via technology such as the use of clickers improve students’ understanding of complex concepts, provide motivation and interest, show individual progress and comprehension, and help teachers to assess student learning while knowing places to improve (Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernandez-Ortega, & Sese, 2013). Also, for the interactivity to provide most benefit, it is pertinent to remember that “instructional designs are likely to be ineffective if they ignore working memory limitations” (Leahy, Hanham, & Sweller, 2015, p. 294).
Interactive Tools Promote Users' Motivation and Learning
Below is a bulleted list of key points from the research articles written by the following researchers that support the idea that interactive media promotes users’ motivation and learning: Barry and Doherty (2017)
“Users are ‘empowered’ to choose paths, take their own meanings, contribute content and register pleasure or dissatisfaction with an experience (p. 1059).”
There is a growing association between interactivity and general media experiences
The public is more literate and demands interactivity
Milner-Bolotin (2012)
Sensors and clickers helped improve student understanding of chemistry
Inquiry-based instruction becomes clear with the use of interactive sensors as the students stay focused on the outcomes with increasing accuracy
Research shows that online simulations or videos used along with hands-on experiments produce higher levels of learning outcomes compared to the same hands-on experiments provided alone
Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernandez-Ortega, and Sese (2013)
The use of clickers improves understanding and increases learning in students
“By fostering student communication with their peers and teachers and promoting social and collaborative exchanges among them, clickers help students develop communication abilities and a collaborative spirit” (p. 108).
Nichols (2015)
Interactive Whiteboards allow teachers and students to teach, create, modify, save, retrieve, and delete data at their fingertips
Students, including special needs students, find it motivating to interact with the SMART Notebook to write music notes as their peers sing along
Even beginner teachers find it easy to use the interactive board
References
Barry, M., & Doherty, G. (2017). What we talk about when we talk about interactivity: Empowerment in public discourse. New Media & Society,19(7), https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625944
Bates, A. W. (1990). Interactivity as a criterion for media selection in distance education(Unpublished master's thesis). The Asian Association Of Open Universities.
Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernandez-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62102-110.
Borsook, T., & Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1991). Interactivity: what is it and what can it do for computer-based instruction? Educational Technology,31(10), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44425695
Cavanaugh, C. (1998). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: a meta-analysis(Unpublished master's thesis).
Crawford, C. (2002). Art of interactive design : a euphonious and illuminating guide to building successful software. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Dwyer, D., Barbieri, K., & Doerr, H. M. (1995). Creating a virtual classroom for interactive education on the web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 27(6), 897-904. doi:10.1016/0169-7552(95)00037-8
Leahy, W., Hanham, J., & Sweller, J. (2015). High element interactivity information during problem solving may lead to failure to obtain the testing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 291-304.
Liu, L., & Cheng, M. (2015). Interactive projector as an interactive teaching tool in the classroom: Evaluating teaching efficiency and interactivity. Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology - TOJET, 14(2), 110-115.
Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2002). The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: The experience of five elementary schools in an English education authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 5(19), 6-19.
Milner-Bolotin, Marina. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education,89(4), 477-481.
Nichols, Bryan E. (2015). The interactive classroom: An overview of smart notebook software. General Music Today,82(3), 28-32.
Pedra, A., Mayer, R. E., & Albertin, A. L. (2015). Role of interactivity in learning from engineering animations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 614-620. doi:10.1002/acp.3137
Seal, K. C., Przasnyski, Z. H., & Leon, L. A. (2010). How levels of interactivity in tutorials affect students' learning of modeling transportation problems in a spreadsheet. Decision Sciences Journal Of Innovative Education, 8(1), 75-94.
Stone, R. (2001). Learning and the importance of interactivity information design becomes interaction design. Information Visualisation, 2001. Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on, 624-629.
Wang, P., & Yang, H. (2014). The impact of e-book interactivity design on childrens Chinese character acquisition. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 784-798. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.917112
Debra Hoggatt (Introduction, References), Margaret Quigley (Theme 1, Interactivity between peers is the most important type of interaction), Satya Vemuri (Theme 2, Purposeful interactivity yields optimum learning), Satya Vemuri (Theme 3, Interactive tools promote users’ motivation and learning)
Table of Contents
Instructional Software and Interactivity
Maggie, Satya, Debra
Introduction
Most people would agree that watching someone else play a video game is not nearly as exciting as playing it oneself. Why? The missing factor is interactivity (Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat, 1991).Although the definition of interactivity is often disputed between new media designers, artists, and users (Interactivity, n.d.), we will agree on a broad definition of interactivity applied to educational software as that being a two way flow of information between the user and the device, or the user and another person. Researchers (e.g., Bates,1990; Dwyer, Barbieri, & Doerr, 1995) agree that two types of interactivity can exist in media - isolated where activity is between materials and learner, and social where activity is between users. Isolated interaction occurs as digital interaction empowers the user to make choices and engages them to participate (Barry et al, 2017). Social interaction occurs at such times when there are options in the program to choose an opponent for a game or communicate with others.
Interactivity is an essential element in education, therefore instructional software designers and educational leaders need to understand its features and determine the best types of interactivity for their purposes. Interactivity holds the attention and engages the human mind more powerfully than any other form of expression (Crawford, 2002). Interaction is a higher order level of feedback that behaviorists and cognitivists agree are important in education, mainly because interactivity empowers and actively involves the user in the learning process (Stone, 2001). In a most recent study, Barry and Doherty (2017) report that the new public is digitally literate and demands digital interactivity, and furthermore can recognize unsuitable or lower grades of interactivity in technologies.
The review of literature on the topic of interactivity within the educational technology realm, supported three main themes. First and foremost, interactivity between peers using the software is found to be the most important type of interaction (Bates, 1990). Next, the literature suggests that purposeful interactivity within the media will yield the most optimum learning (Seal, Przasnyski, & Leon, 2010). Lastly, research reports that interactive tools promote users’ motivation and learning (Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernandez-Ortega, & Sese, 2013). These three themes will be elaborated upon within this literature review.
Interactivity Between Peers is the Most Important Type of Interaction
Not all interactivity weighs the same. Dwyer, Barbieri, and Doerr (1995) state both physical interactive resources as well as digital interactive resources are important components in educational design. Also, different types of interaction such as isolated activities, where users interact with materials and social activities, where users interact with each other regarding the materials are important to consider when designing or selecting materials (Bates, 1990). Interactivity between peers is the most essential type of interaction is one theme seen throughout the literature for several reasons.
Discussing with others is how students make sense of the information being presented to them. Dwyer et al. (1995) explains interaction with other students and staff, no matter how small, can lead to students rethinking their understanding of the material, interpretation of knowledge, and gain valuable feedback from others. Each student comes from a different background and therefore interprets information differently, perhaps from a vantage point not thought of by others. When these different perspectives are shared with others it allows students to have a deeper understanding of the information they are learning.
When designing or selecting software, an educator should be aware of the interactivity component between users. Having students interact with each other is a key way to supplement a lesson, but it should not be the sole way students digest information. Cavanaugh (1998), in regards to distance education, claims the interaction conducted online should be supplemental to the classroom. An avenue for interaction between teachers, parents, and students can be opened up using a classroom website or similar software. Chen and Chang (2007) discuss the benefits of an “e-homebook”. This is essentially a classroom discussion board where teachers can make announcements and email parents, parents can discuss class or school affairs, and students can discuss class content with their peers. This takes the interactivity outside of the classroom and has the meaningful learning and interaction continue elsewhere.
Interactivity features within software and other materials provide many benefits for both students and educators. To be sure students have the opportunity to interpret and make sense of the information being presented, educators must consider interactivity between peers when designing or electing materials so students have the chance to discuss and interpret information being presented to them.
Purposeful Interactivity Yields Optimum Learning
While it is true that interactivity between the technology and the user increases learning, an important factor that may decide optimal learning is the level of interactivity. A study conducted by Seal, Przasnyski, and Leon (2010) found that too much interactivity with the software and technology tools overwhelms the users and makes it hard “for them to consolidate concepts, integrate previous knowledge, and create meaningful mental models of the process” (p. 75). When interacting with the device, the frequency of interaction, range of interactive features, and the mode of information dispersion such as audio or visual, determine the level of interactivity (Seal et.al., 2010). Further, low interactivity consists of simple controls such as forward, backward, or repeat, which help the user to consume information at his/her own pace, while higher interactivity gives a range of choices of action and frequent back and forth of information, which lead to distractions and an increase in the cognitive load of information on the user (p. 77). In this study, the researchers found that there is a correlation with the types of cognitive load acceptance with the amount of interactivity. Overload of information and complexity of interaction create an increase in extraneous cognitive load leading to poor understanding (p. 84). Thus, the researchers concluded “low interactivity tutorials made that group view their tutorials positively in assisting them to accomplish the task at hand” (Seal et.al., 2010, p. 87).
Another aspect to be considered when incorporating interactivity is the complexity of the device to the teacher and students. This is illustrated in a research conducted by Liu and Cheng (2015) who found that when an interactive technology is newly introduced, there should be time for the teachers and students to understand and become familiar with it, before the actual results of interaction can be perceived. They also found that ceaseless interactions lead to continuous multi-tasking, information overload, and distraction from actual learning (p. 117). In a similar study by Leahy, Hanham, and Sweller (2015), the researchers found that high elements of interactivity can prove to be counterproductive to the learning process as they create a heavy memory load: “If the very narrow limits of human working memory when dealing with novel information are exceeded, the task may not be completed and learning may be limited” (Leahy, Hanham, & Sweller, 2015, p. 301).
In conclusion, low, measured, and purposeful interactivity yields optimal learning in users. Constructive, meaningful interactions between students and teacher via technology such as the use of clickers improve students’ understanding of complex concepts, provide motivation and interest, show individual progress and comprehension, and help teachers to assess student learning while knowing places to improve (Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernandez-Ortega, & Sese, 2013). Also, for the interactivity to provide most benefit, it is pertinent to remember that “instructional designs are likely to be ineffective if they ignore working memory limitations” (Leahy, Hanham, & Sweller, 2015, p. 294).
Interactive Tools Promote Users' Motivation and Learning
Below is a bulleted list of key points from the research articles written by the following researchers that support the idea that interactive media promotes users’ motivation and learning:
Barry and Doherty (2017)
- “Users are ‘empowered’ to choose paths, take their own meanings, contribute content and register pleasure or dissatisfaction with an experience (p. 1059).”
- There is a growing association between interactivity and general media experiences
- The public is more literate and demands interactivity
Milner-Bolotin (2012)- Sensors and clickers helped improve student understanding of chemistry
- Inquiry-based instruction becomes clear with the use of interactive sensors as the students stay focused on the outcomes with increasing accuracy
- Research shows that online simulations or videos used along with hands-on experiments produce higher levels of learning outcomes compared to the same hands-on experiments provided alone
Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernandez-Ortega, and Sese (2013)- The use of clickers improves understanding and increases learning in students
- “By fostering student communication with their peers and teachers and promoting social and collaborative exchanges among them, clickers help students develop communication abilities and a collaborative spirit” (p. 108).
Nichols (2015)References
Barry, M., & Doherty, G. (2017). What we talk about when we talk about interactivity: Empowerment in public discourse. New Media & Society,19(7), https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625944
Bates, A. W. (1990). Interactivity as a criterion for media selection in distance education(Unpublished master's thesis). The Asian Association Of Open Universities.
Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernandez-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62102-110.
Borsook, T., & Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1991). Interactivity: what is it and what can it do for computer-based instruction? Educational Technology,31(10), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44425695
Cavanaugh, C. (1998). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: a meta-analysis(Unpublished master's thesis).
Chen, H., Yu, C., & Chang, C. (2007). E-homebook system: A web-based interactive education interface. Computers & Education, 49(2), 160-175. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.003
Crawford, C. (2002). Art of interactive design : a euphonious and illuminating guide to building successful software. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Dwyer, D., Barbieri, K., & Doerr, H. M. (1995). Creating a virtual classroom for interactive education on the web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 27(6), 897-904. doi:10.1016/0169-7552(95)00037-8
Interactivity. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2018, from http://newmedia.wikia.com/wiki/Interactivity
Leahy, W., Hanham, J., & Sweller, J. (2015). High element interactivity information during problem solving may lead to failure to obtain the testing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 291-304.
Liu, L., & Cheng, M. (2015). Interactive projector as an interactive teaching tool in the classroom: Evaluating teaching efficiency and interactivity. Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology - TOJET, 14(2), 110-115.
Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2002). The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: The experience of five elementary schools in an English education authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 5(19), 6-19.
Milner-Bolotin, Marina. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education,89(4), 477-481.
Nichols, Bryan E. (2015). The interactive classroom: An overview of smart notebook software. General Music Today,82(3), 28-32.
Pedra, A., Mayer, R. E., & Albertin, A. L. (2015). Role of interactivity in learning from engineering animations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 614-620. doi:10.1002/acp.3137
Seal, K. C., Przasnyski, Z. H., & Leon, L. A. (2010). How levels of interactivity in tutorials affect students' learning of modeling transportation problems in a spreadsheet. Decision Sciences Journal Of Innovative Education, 8(1), 75-94.
Stone, R. (2001). Learning and the importance of interactivity information design becomes interaction design. Information Visualisation, 2001. Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on, 624-629.
Wang, P., & Yang, H. (2014). The impact of e-book interactivity design on childrens Chinese character acquisition. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 784-798. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.917112
Debra Hoggatt (Introduction, References), Margaret Quigley (Theme 1, Interactivity between peers is the most important type of interaction), Satya Vemuri (Theme 2, Purposeful interactivity yields optimum learning), Satya Vemuri (Theme 3, Interactive tools promote users’ motivation and learning)